Appeal No. 97-2451 Page 5
Application No. 08/260,635
Admittedly, the fact that some claim language, such as the
terms of degree mentioned supra, may not be precise, does not
automatically render the claim indefinite and hence invalid under
the second paragraph of § 112. Seattle Box, supra.
Nevertheless, the need to cover what might constitute
insignificant variations of an invention does not amount to a
license to resort to the unbridled use of such terms without
appropriate constraints to guard against the potential use of
such terms as the proverbial nose of wax.3
In Seattle Box, the court set forth the following
requirements for terms of degree:
When a word of degree is used the district court must
determine whether the patent's specification provides
some standard for measuring that degree. The trial
court must decide, that is, whether one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand what is claimed when
the claim is read in light of the specification.
In Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758
F.2d 613, 624, 225 USPQ 634, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the court
added:
3 See White v. Dunbar, 119 US 47, 51-52 (1886) and Townsend
Engineering Co. v. HiTec Co. Ltd., 829 F.2d 1086, 4 USPQ2d 1136,
1139 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007